NRA ‘Disappointed’ With Biden Meeting For Proposing Restrictions On Guns

Source: TPM Livewire

The National Rifle Association issued a statement following a meeting on gun violence with Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Thursday, saying it was "disappointed" with how much the conversation focused on limiting the Second Amendment.

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," read the statement. "While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans."

"It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems," it continued. "We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not."

2. 'Specifically, what 'failed solutions?'

Since the NRA has successfully blocked any and all attempts at a rational, responsible conversation, what's he talking about? He's also setting up the false framework of "keeping children safe vs. attacking the second amendment." The brain cells of these people must be very, very lonely floating up there in their skulls.

95. Seriously -- it just makes sense for EVERYBODY. If I were your next door

whack next door neighbor who "owned a few guns", would you feel more comfortable knowing I'd had a psych eval?

I'm not a gun owner, but totally support those of you who are. I don't see why asking for licensing/training is too much to ask. Years ago we could get drivers licenses without having taken Drivers Ed, but now it's a requirement (I think). I think that's reasonable.

Although it would be ideal if people were given a psych eval, not sure that will fly. I'd fear too much potential to let a tester's bias influence the outcome.

97. The problem with licensing is that it creates a registry, and anything involving govt psych testing

is scary as hell... You would absolutely get test bias, particularly when the testers are on the payroll of those who want to dissuade gun ownership. I definitely don't want guns in the hands of crazy people, but psych evals opens the door to a scary can of worms as it relates to our civil liberties. I definitely agree that we need to have strong measures around checking on who is buying guns, but that can't come from Big Brother determining mental competency, and creating registries through licensing opens the door for confiscation when the political winds blow in the direction of those favoring disarmament...

100. Don't be so sure...

It may seem like political suicide where we sit now, but the will certainly exists as you can see all over this board... Change doesn't typically come in seismic shifts- it tends to happen incrementally, so it is a slippery slope... And psych testing by the government freaks me in a big way regardless of the political leanings involved...

123. Yeah, bias could be a problem...

as a country, though, we really have to figure where to go from here. I would start with closing the gun show loop hole and making it illegal to sell guns privately without a background check. There are guns shops everywhere that already are set up for this. Maybe they get paid a small fee to do it, and make their license dependent on performing these checks for private sales.

That guy in NY who set a house on fire then shot up the firemen was convicted of killing his grandmother with a hammer. He probably got his gun at a show or from someone he knew. Would this totally eliminate his ability to get a gun? No, but it would make it less likely.

125. I think the gun show loophole is a good step. Just caught the

end of a show on Current about American guns getting into Mexico. They had a little undercover clip at a gun show and I was ASTOUNDED to actually see these guys buy "assault" weapons easier than they could buy a pack of cigarettes.

150. I don't oppose the idea of a "null psych eval" but I would need to know several things ...

before I could support it.

1) What would such an evaluation cost?

2) What qualifications would the person who ran the test be required to have?

3) Would this test apply to people considering buying a firearm or to all 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation?

4) How accurate are such tests? Would it have detected the shooters in the recent tragic massacres?

5) Would requiring a large number of people to obtain such an evaluation hamper our mental care system and make it even more ineffective than it is today?

I personally favor a card system that would require any individual to show a picture ID that proved he had attended a firearm safety course when he wished to buy ammo or a firearm. My idea would be even more effective if in order to get the card, the person would have to go through a background check and possibly a mental evaluation.

However I also feel that the process of obtaining such a card should not be so time consuming or expensive that It would discourage the lower middle class and the poor from owning a firearm for self defense if they chose. Such people often live in the crowded inner cities which are often also the most dangerous areas.

(I should point out that I am a gun owner in Florida and have a concealed weapons permit.)

118. So guess now grenades are passe'?

Seriously, these types of arguments are abundant on DU right now and all of them are straw men. Name me one massacre prevented by someone else with a gun - there are zero! The more guns the more murders - period the end - everywhere in the entire world. Australia reduced their gun deaths dramatically by outlawing any assault rife, large magazines, concealed carry, have to be registered, have to take gun classes. We require this for driving a car, and most of us can't even support ourselves without these, why not do the same for guns?

122. Not a straw man- the second ammendment is about distrust of government- not massacres

That would make your argument a straw man... We need to take steps to reign in these kinds of tragedies, but disarmament is not the solution. Again, please review this post for an expanded explanation. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=364899. You are not responding to what I've said there. In brief 1) Bans won't work, 2) they present an unacceptable threat to our freedom. My linked post also addresses your Australia comparison... In short, it's an invalid comparison...

And as far as grenades and even heavier weapons, those would like be supplied by an insurrection in our military if we are going to debate based on that sort of extreme scenario.

140. I agree with your civilized society argument

But you are naive to think that's what we have. It's that kind of nativity that empowers the people you vote for to erode our liberty through an ever growing government. Your moral outrage over a society that would legalize weapons like these is well placed, but you are naive to think there is not good reason to keep the government at arm's length. History (very recent history even) tells us otherwise. I am saddened by it, but we are not where you want us to be as a society yet.

134. I don't distrust government

In fact, the federal government tries to protect the rights of minorities and is close to protecting the rights of GLBT folk, and it doesn't matter where you live. It protects many from being at the mercy of mob rule. Because of the federal government millions of people will have access to health insurance.

I love my country - warts and all. There are some policies that I strongly disagree with, but it doesn't cross my mind to throw the baby out with the bath water. That's what it means to form a more perfect union. I believe what Dr. King said about justice and the arc of history.

But I believe you hate America. You don't love this country. The country you want - some kind of right wing paradise - is a myth. A fairy tale.

You believe the government is out to get you. I don't understand your worldview. The whole idea that you believe you need to protect yourself from our federal government is ludicrous.

139. My worldview is based on a broad understanding of history

All I can do here is redirect you to my original comments because I've already addressed your points there. If you want to debunk my logic, take my position apart piece by piece with logic. The insulting shout me down approach does nothing but make you look illogical. Based on your rant above, I'm thinking you're gonna need some help from a better debater.

128. Watch your attitude. You're off to a crappy start.

141. oh really?

Do you prefer to immerse yourself in group think? Perhaps you'd like to have me censored ? Maybe it's the instincts of someone like you that validate my point that we should not be chipping away at the Bill of Rights. Think about that a little instead of throwing out some pathetic threat or insult.

81. That's a very disturbing statistic, and nothing to be proud of

And so is this...

The United States owns more guns per resident, at about 0.89, than any other nation in the world. The U.S. is almost half again the next two highest nations, Serbia and Yemen at about 0.55 and triple major European countries like France and Germany.

91. We can't effectively get them rounded up, and the Founder's distrust of government was well placed..

I am definitely okay with strict background checks as I definitely want to dissuade firearms in the hands of criminals and crazy people. I am also okay with increased investment in mental healthcare. What I really wish we could do is quit whistling past the graveyard on the real issue which is people shooting at each other in inner cities. Why is there not more outrage from the left on this? To me, this is a tremendously unfortunate crisis of our society. I don't mean a crisis from the standpoint that it is a threat to me- as you said, you feel perfectly safe. I am guessing you don't live in a high crime area, and while I live in a central urban area, I don't live in a neighborhood where people are killing each other in the streets. That is happening here in my city though, and it is tragedy in my mind. Where is your outrage on the crisis these folks are faced with?

Stats show again and again and again that bans don't work. I am not sure if you are saying ban future sales or confiscation of everything, but either way, you are not going to address the central issue with any real substance via a ban. There are 300 million guns in this country, and the argument that you would just be preventing law abiding people from having guns is not a straw man argument by any stretch. It is a straw man argument to point to other countries as proof positive of yuor position as you did earlier because those countries don't have 300 million guns already in circulation, and they don't have the widespread culture of gun ownership we have here. Attempting bans simply will not work, and those efforts are unfortunately just a shortsighted effort to address a more fundamental problem.

The intent of the 2nd amendment is a check against despotism, and we have just come out of a century where 250 million+ people were murdered at the hands of their own government. Look what is happening in Syria as we debate this today. I would love to think we have graduated to everlasting freedom of tyranny, but to take such a position is dangerously naive given what I have just said. And even if we could somehow magically disarm the population, then we are absolutely exposed to greater restrictions on our liberties, likely starting with oppression of dissent. It is much easier to oppress somebody's fundamental rights when they won't be reaching for a rifle to resist it... Given this position, I am very adamantly opposed to any sort of registry, as I cannot imagine any benefit that provides aside from opening us up to confiscation when the political environment seems ripe for it... If you can see another benefit of a registry, please enlighten me...

138. talking points- really?

You've missed my point. Please have another look and try again. Claiming these are talking points implies I am simply trumpeting somebody else's logic. Pick my "talking points" apart and enlighten me. Name calling, dismissing me as paranoid or crazy, throwing out straw men arguments that skirt my point are not allowed else you are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient in your position.

103. And according to another Wiki referenced statistic

There are over 100 countries who have a higher homocide rate per 100,000 people than the US. If gun ownership is the problem, and the US has the highest per capita gun ownership, whats going on in those other countries?

Serious question, if the goal is to reduce violent crime and murder these statistics do not support the argument that gun ownership is a cause. Perhaps there is a another cause that is being ignored.

107. That's what I wanna know...

I am not a Democrat (Libertarian). I am on this board to debate, and either 1) be enlightened that I am wrong, of 2) if I am not wrong, encourage the other posters to broaden their perspective so we can face the real issues and not a straw man...

111. It makes me sad

that far to often effort is spent arguing over emotion and ideology instead of facts and reality. Both sides do it, and in the end the real problems get ignored as the debate victors celebrate, and the losers tuck their tail and run while the problem remains.

113. And that's true on both the liberal and conservative sides depending on the issue...

Issues like gun control get debated from a position of emotion by liberals, while many conservatives debate from positions of emotion on issues like gay marriage, smoking pot or abortion... Usually the result is a position that cannot be defended on the basis of reason...

142. Are you kidding me?

It's a TOS violation to disagree with you? Well if I get tossed off of here for debating you, I hope some people here will take note of what that implies as it relates to the central point I've been making here. Why is it not a TOS violation to engage in all the name calling I see here. Hmmm sounds much like the oppression of dissent I am talking about. Be honest with yourselves and consider my point. I come here in hope of having someone show me a reasonable perspective on this issue, and I get a lot of verification around my concerns about your perspective instead.

49. You have put Jody on "full igore"

Full Ignore

Selecting this option prevents you from seeing another member. While logged in, you will not be able to see any of their posts or replies to their posts. This option includes Block Mail -- whether you are logged in or not, the member will not be able to send you DU Mail messages. You may use this option on an unlimited number of members.

Some people just do not have a conscience, nor a sense of how to debate. I found one here on DU tonight. I'm sure this person has been found so many times to lack logic, and back it up with faulty references to Supreme Court decisions from back before there were assault weapons. Some DU peope sound like mindless Republicans to me. But that's just the way I see it. They want their guns, it's like an addiction! Nothing less than their rights to own and operate a 100 fire assault weapon will satisfy them. These folks are Democrats? I don't hardly think so!

120. Thanks for the suggestion

47. No right to self-defense?

Either you're just here to stir the shit, or you've lived in a bubble your entire life.

Even the most ardent critics of the 2nd Amendment have never made that wild a claim. Would you suggest I need to be a part of a well-regulated militia in order to defend myself from violence with a non-firearm weapon? How about a katana, or a baseball bat, or a well-trained guard dog? Can I use those to defend myself instead of a gun, or is that also not one of my rights?

98. welcome DryRain

I think I agree with you. The second amendment is about state militias (national guard today). Gun owners have a right to certain types of weapons because laws have not been passed to outlaw them. If the people decide to outlaw or require back ground checks or education to own a gun then that is the law and ignore it at your own risk.

72. You certainly have a right to think you can protect yourself...

You certainly have a right to think you can protect yourself. Whether one is actually competent enough to do so when faced with relevant situations or not is probably just another cool internet story, bro.

48. You were doing something illegal at 17!

52. I'll give you all the details you want

I grew up in an emotionally abusive household. My mom and dad fought all the time, and the day before my senior year in high school was no different. Let's see, that would have made it the first week in Sept, 1997. We'd been baling hay and working around the farm all day, and we came inside to rest in the afternoon. I decided to grab my deer rifle from my parent's closet (legally owned, since it was a gift to me from my parents) and head out to the gravel pit in the woods to do some target practice (also legal since it was our property outside city limits), mainly to get away from the yelling. The arguments continued between my parents, and my dad snapped. He grabbed my mom by the throat and slammed her into a corner with both hands, attempting to choke her. My 14-yr old sister grabbed a coffee cup and broke it across the back of my dad's head. He let go of my mom and took a swing at her. He missed, but her and my 13-yr old brother ran to the bedroom where I was.

When I heard the screaming, I loaded a round into my gun. My sister and brother came running into the bedroom, and a few seconds later my dad kicked the door in. He stepped forward and screamed "I'm going to fucking kill you!" That's when I pointed my rifle at him. He took a few steps into the room, saw the gun, and froze. After a few seconds, he ran out of the room, past my mom on the phone with 911, and out to the barns.

It took 45 MINUTES before the police arrived, and while we waited the crazy fucker pulled the spark plugs from my mom's car as I stood by the front door with the gun. The cops listened to my mom's side, my dad's side, and threatened to arrest BOTH of them on domestic violence charges. You could actually see the bruises in the shape of my dad's fingers on my mom's throat. So, my mom declined to press charges and instead we packed up our clothes in garbage bags and moved in with my grandma instead.

After a month, my mom brought us back home to the farm. She told us she'd reconciled with my dad, and everything would be OK. The next year, I went to college. I received a call from my sister later that year telling me that my dad had beaten my mom again and that they were back living with my grandparents. After that, my mom finally left him.

79. Thank you Nick for posting this inconvenient bit of reality

This poster cannot advance his/her position on the basis of reason, so reality has to be twisted to fit the argument... Additionally, that has to be augmented with personal insults and arrogantly dismissive positions that gloss over the inconvenient facts... Ultimately, as we have seen, above in this thread, he/she surrenders in the debate, blocks his/her opponent from the thread, and declares victory on the basis of his/her superior reasoning, which as I have pointed out, did not exist to begin with. How about a debate without the insults- I propose it cannot be done, because it will fail on the basis of reason alone...

24. You missed my point. The anti-RKBA crowd has no credible research that shows the number or type

of firearm causes murder.

Absent that research, it cannot show that banning some types of firearms reduces murders or mass-murders.

Obama and Holder control the type of data collected for the Uniform Crime Report.

Holder has been in office since 2009 and he has not added any new data elements to UCR that could help criminologists and other researchers test the hypothesis "Ho: Firearms don't cause crime" "Ha: Firearms cause crime".

Either they don't think that's important or they are not in touch with the problem.

68. Typical

The more data that piles up against gun nuts, the more they seek to wriggle out of its inescapable conclusions by reducing the number of sources they deem acceptable. Why not cut to the chase now and declare that the only source you will consider sufficiently authoritative on the subject is the Inuit Council on the Prevention and Treatment of Ice-Induced Hemorrhoids? It's highly doubtful that they will have investigated the topic of gun violence in America, so you guys should be safe from any of those pesky facts then.

74. "The two"?

Actually, you are referencing two surveys, neither of which produced a conclusion one way or the other. Both cite a lack of data, for which the NRA is chiefly responsible. The second study that you cite references specifically concealed carry permit holders, who represent a select group who have to undergo precisely the kind of rigorous scrutiny that gun control advocates have been calling for and that the NRA has been fighting. So the conclusions of "the two" authoritative studies you revere are that the NRA has successfully prevented data from being assembled that would conflict with their starting premises, and that there is no data to support a conclusion that a select group unrepresentative of gun owners as a whole, who have undergone rigorous background checks, contribute to murder rates. And based upon these weak conclusions, you are going to challenge any proposed gun control legislation. You might want to re-think that.

88. What if there were a sort of round-about-way to get to the same result,

AND kill an extra bird with the same stone, so to speak?

What if, instead of banning OWNERSHIP of these types of weapons, we banned the manufacture of them (by Incorporated Entities) to all but Federal and some State Agencies, (and even then, only allowed the manufacture of them when a SPECIFIC order(s) for a SPECIFIC weapon(s) is placed, no "surplus" stores sitting around) and to licensed, regulated, and ATFE MONITORED Firing and Sport Shooting Ranges. If you want to OWN one, feel free to build the damned thing yourself out of spare and tinkered parts in your garage (but you would still have to register it, maybe as a collectible/"unique" type of firearm?)

If you simply want to SHOOT one of these weapons for training, target practice, or, for some, just the pure fun of it (I know, I know, but to each his own, that's kinda how we do things in this country) go to the local and licensed firing range, RENT ONE that stays locked up otherwise, and have all the fun you want with it.

The driving motivation for this line of reasoning is as follows: a Citizen has 2nd Amendment Rights. A CORPORATION sure as hell does NOT, and WHAT they do, WHAT they make and sell, and WHO they are allowed to sell those goods to can FOR-SURE be regulated, and since were talking about it, no actually, you don't REALLY have the "Right" to lobby Congress to change their minds EITHER. Go Fuck yourselves, America's Corporations.

When we start making the distinction between Corporate persons and ACTUAL Persons, the amount of shit we can get done (at least theoretically) never ceases to amaze me.

50. Figures on gun ownership is all the research needed...

with the proliferation of gun sales in this country, just since the tragedy in Connecticut, I think that the notion of trying to connect firearms to crime is nothing more than a thwarting bluff that the gun lobby has always used to forestall and effectively prevent good gun regs that could ultimately make our nation safer and healthier for the majority of its citizens.

I am certainly not anti-RKBA, but my solutions to thinning out the gun enthusiasts, both the responsible, law-abiding ones and the gun-toting thugs, would be to tax the hell out of all of them.

Reach into the deep pockets of the gun dealers whose business it is to put even more firearms into circulation or the bug-eyed militia maniac who simply has to have the latest technical advance in fire-power, and then also wrap every purchase of the means to operate those modern "toys", the ammo, with appropriate luxury taxes. Specify that those special extraordinary taxes collected must be used to fund improved health programs, for care and treatment of victims of gun violence and also much-needed mental health services.

Maybe such new taxes could be a step toward helping provide that "research" the gun lobby so desperately thinks needs to be done. If a study is required to satisfy gun enthusiasts, maybe they should be the ones to pay for it?

56. Why do you insult me by alleging "prolong enactment"? Goodbye

59. Because you refused to answer my very first question?

Sorry if you feel that I've jumped to certain conclusions here, but what else am I to suppose when you continue to propose that the "anti-RKBA" folk don't have any good relevant stats on the connection between firearms and murder?

I doubt that the average American cares much at this point about the relationship between gun ownership numbers (or even types of guns) and crime rates (even murder).

I do believe that many (including responsible firearm owners) have been awakened to the fact that we have quite a few gun-enthusiasts running around, bullying and braying on Capitol Hill, who care more about designating and defining their own constitutional rights than they care about the safety and health and constitutional promises guaranteed the rest of us.

70. That is the ultimate dishonesty of the gun nut assholes: they suppress research with threats

Then say "I won't listen until you provide peer-reviewed research!" blah blah blah. The very research they have been working hard for 30 years to prevent from happening. In other words, they are dishonest assholes. This is not that different than what the cigarette companies did for years: intimidate, threaten, throw tantrums.

25. That's a good point.

And I don't think anyone thinks gun control, alone, will solve the problem. Gun control is a small part of the problem. However these NRA people want to discuss the problem without talking about guns. That's impossible. Guns are an inescapable part of the current problem. Its guns that allows someone to easily commit mass murder. You can also accomplish mass-murder with explosives and toxins. However those two things are highly, and tightly regulated. Guns, at least in America, aren't.

Also, I haven't heard one person in our government proposing to repeal the 2nd amendment or take guns away from the people. The NRA has their panties in a wad over magazine capacity limits and the right to have military-grade weapons in civillian hands. No where is anybody trying to take their guns away. The 2nd amendment is still preserved, although I'm hard pressed to call any of these people a "well regulated militia" But they're still allowed to have and carry weapons. People are just saying you don't need an extended clip in your Sig.

And I'm not even going to get into the gun show loop hole.

We're only in a stand-off because there is a minority of Americans who are hysterical and obsessed about being armed with a firearm at all times of the day and who believe they only way to solve difficult problems is to shoot them. If those hysterical people would calm down and recognize that nobody's taking their guns away, or their right to own a firearm and use it legally, there would be no stand-off.

I live in the city of Chicago. We have a serious gun problem and a high murder rate. We also have a serious crime rate and have endured some nasty flash mobs, they were real popular a few summers ago. I have a small child at home, and though I'm over 6 feet tall, my wife is pretty small. We've never desired possessing a firearm of any kind. There was an assault across the street from my house this summer, its unclear if it was a mugging or attempted rape. But my neighbor had a rape whistle and used it, which woke me up and I went outside, armed only with a cell phone and responded, helping to scare the attacker away. Two other neighbors joined me. We stayed with the victim and patrolled the block until the police arrived, we did all this unarmed. And this is on the affluent, white, North Side.

My family and I protect ourselves and will exercise our right to protect ourselves to the fullest extent we are able. We're not that terrified that we have to hide behind a gun to be protected. We have plenty of reasons to desire a firearm, but we do not. We're confident enough in ourselves and training (my son and I are karateka) that we do not desire weapons.

114. I know this is circumstantial evidence but...

There is a marked difference in the number and the method of mass murders between the USA (very lax gun policy) and the UK (strict gun policy).

The statistics I have compiled below are sourced from Wikipedia but here's the summary.

1) In the last 20 years there have been 6 cases that could be classified as mass murder in the UK, Jersey, Guernsey & Isle of Man. 2 of these involved firearms. Total of 42 deaths in a mass murder event.

2) In the last 20 years there have been 61 cases that could be classified as mass murder in the USA. 53 cases involve a firearm. Total of 437 deaths

3) The UK population is 1/5th of the USA. Thus multiplying the UK statistics by 5 could be considered a fair comparison.

4) Thus the UK has :
a) half the mass-murder rate of the USA (6 x 5 = 30 for UK vs 61 for USA),
b) less than half the death rate ( 42 x 5 = 210 for UK vs 437 for US)
c) about the same deaths by school mass-murder: (17 x 5 = 102 for UK vs 108 for US)
d) half the number of school mass murder events than the USA (1 x 5 = 5 for UK vs 11 for USA)
e) much less death by firearm in a mass-murder (29 x 5 = 174 for UK vs 364 for US)
f) had no recorded workplace mass killing, even without a firearm.
g) a higher death rate in mass murder not by firearms compared to USA (13 x 5 = 65 vs 55 in US)

Thankfully mass murder events are rare - you're twice as likely to be struck dead by lightning than be killed in a mass murder spree.

Other figures - there's about 1 gun per person in the USA. In Canada, three people would have to share the same gun. In the UK, fifteen people would share the same gun.

But I think these figures reveal something: that America is definitely seen rightly as a violent, gun mad country... there are more deaths by firearms in the USA than anywhere else... and ready availability of firearms can co-relate to the number of mass-murder sprees.

This is why there *must* be some gun law enforcement going on and yes, stricter rules on getting a firearm. However I believe that who wants a gun for legitimate purposes should be able to have one... and people like me be denied a firearm (yes I have mental health issues, yes I am treated for it, yes I have displayed suicidal intents in the past).

61. "...interested in having an honest conversation about what works..."

I see. And what would this discussion be about? I've never heard the NRA once come up with any actual proposals for how to address gun violence. The only thing they ever have to contribute to the discussion is to deny that guns play any role in gun violence and to hurl misleading invective at anyone who tries to discuss gun violence. So a gun association wants to be part of a discussion in which they are unwilling to participate. So what, precisely, about guns do hey wish to discuss? Do they just want to get together with public officials, drink a few beers, and shoot the shit about how great hollow point ammo is? What? What they are clearly not interested in is having anything whatsoever to do with any discussion of gun violence. So why don't they just go home if they don't want to talk about it?

83. Who would have ever thought a predominantly Caucasian, right-wing political action committee...

Well bless their little hearts. Who would have ever thought a predominantly Caucasian, right-wing political action committee would have been disappointed in a meeting with a black democrat sitting in the Oval Office...?

84. Perhaps the NRA needs to change their acronym to the NARA.

85. PR Speak translation

What they said, "We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not."

What they meant, "We are willing to talk to people who may be willing to take our bribes (campaign donations) to obstruct any meaningful reforms."

90. NRA's real agenda is to increase gun industry profitability nt

92. What Is He Talking About

"We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen".

Nearly all of the "madmen" have been law-abiding gun owners up to the point of their carnage when the sole purpose of their arsenal purchase was the carnage that took place shortly after the purchase of the now legal equipment.

As Tuscon showed us, limiting the rounds in a magazine has the real possibility for lessening the carnage. How? Well, the Tuscon shooter was taken down when he had to stop to put in a new magazine. Do the math. What would have happened if that pause would have happened after 10 rounds rather than after 30 rounds. He surely didn't miss with the last 20 rounds he fired, now did he?

93. Lead poisoning leads to gun craziness?

Last week we learned bout the correlation/causation of lead poisoning and crime rates/aggressive behavior....maybe we should investigate the mental status of gun lovers (in particular frequent hunters that eat their prey) and their blood lead levels; will frequent visits to gun ranges increase exposure to lead?

maybe we can measure the blood lead levels in potential gun buyers as a qualifier for purchase .... and provide medical treatments for people with elevated levels...and matching propaganda...like the anti-tobacco campaign that showed the dire consequences (cancer) of tobacco consumption..we can project gun lovers as potentially stupid with shorter life span due to lead contamination.. love for guns as medical condition/ mental illness..not covered by health insurance..anyway I see clear similarities between the tobacco and the gun/ weapons industry

96. Good job, Joe!

104. I think my computer was hacked by NRA

I just joined this site, and as a new member, I can't start a new topic. I was on a website where I criticized the NRA. I got an immediate response from someone who told me to "be careful." I asked him, "Why...are you threatening me?" Shortly after that my computer went dead completely. I couldn't revive it at all! I took it in for repairs, but that was unsuccessful. I bought a new computer,and since then, I'm reluctant to go on various news forums and make comments about the NRA.

110. It's doable

I don't know the circumstances pertaining to your computer but yes, I suppose that is possible. I generally don't think of the right as tech-savvy but depending on what site you were on and what protections you had on your computer, would determine the potential access that someone who have to cause you malice. Sorry to hear about your computer.